RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00904
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00

                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded from general to honorable and the narrative
reason be changed to medical reasons.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered from a mental condition that  explained  his  pattern  of
misconduct that led to his discharge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement  and
a copy of his medical record progress notes.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22  October  1980  and
reenlisted on 30 September 1984.

On 3 December 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander  that
he  was  recommending  him  for  discharge  for  minor   disciplinary
infractions, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46.   The
commander  recommended  an  Under  Other  Than  Honorable  Conditions
discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The  commander
advised his reasons for this action being taken were:  (1)  financial
irresponsibility (Failure to pay  janitorial  fees).   (2)  Financial
irresponsibility (Failure to pay deferred payment from  the  military
clothing sales store).  (3) Failure to go (Failure to report  for  an
assigned detail at Barracks 540 on 4 July 1985).  (4) Failure to  go.
(Failure to report for duty at the time prescribed on 17 July  1986).
(5) Drunk on duty.  (On 17 July 1986 after reporting for  duty  late,
the applicant was found to be drunk.) (6) Suicidal gestures.  (On  26
July 1986 he was confined in the XXXXX Regional  Hospital,  Columbus,
MS, and the  Columbus  AFB  Hospital  for  suicidal  gestures).   The
commander advised the applicant if he was  discharged,  he  would  be
ineligible for reenlistment in the Air  Force.   Applicant  was  also
advised he had a right to consult counsel, present  his  case  to  an
administrative discharge board, be represented by legal counsel at  a
board hearing, submit statements in his own behalf in addition to, or
in lieu of, the  board hearing, or waive the above rights.

On 11  December  1986,  the  applicant  acknowledged  the  letter  of
notification.  He also offered a conditional  waiver  of  the  rights
associated with an administrative discharge board hearing.  He stated
this waiver was contingent on his receipt of no less than  a  general
discharge, if the recommendation for discharge was approved.

On 22 December 1986, the base commander recommended  the  conditional
waiver submitted by the applicant be accepted.

On 16 January 1987, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended approval  of
applicant’s discharge with a general discharge without P&R.

On 21 January 1987, the discharge authority accepted the  applicant’s
conditional waiver and directed that he be discharged with a  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The applicant’s discharge  was  effected  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 because of Misconduct on 29 January 1987.  He
was credited with 6 years, 3 months and 8 days of total  active  duty
service.  The DD Form 214 in applicant’s personnel folder  shows  his
characterization of service as honorable instead of general.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant was  discharged
in 1987 for a pattern of misconduct that he contends was  the  result
of his Bipolar  Disorder  that  went  undiagnosed  until  1999.   The
applicant’s service medical record reflects problems  with  mood  and
alcohol abuse starting within 6 months  of  his  initial  enlistment.
Despite this, his  duty  performance  reflected  in  his  performance
reports was excellent up to and including his  last  year  on  active
duty when recurring problems with financial irresponsibility, failure
to report to work and being drunk on duty  resulted  in  disciplinary
action  and  discharge.   The  August  1986   psychiatry   evaluation
following a suicide  attempt  gave  him  a  diagnosis  of  adjustment
disorder  with  mixed  disturbance  of  emotion  and  conduct.   This
evaluation was not a command directed evaluation  and  there  was  no
recorded history that the evaluating psychiatrist was  aware  of  the
disciplinary problems the applicant was having.  There were no follow-
up psychiatry evaluations with recurrent behavioral problems, but  it
must also be noted that there is no documentation to reflect  whether
there was anything  in  the  applicant’s  behavior  that  would  have
prompted a reasonable  person  to  conclude  that  there  may  be  an
underlying psychiatric problem other than the adjustment disorder.

Bipolar disorder is an illness characterized by a period of sustained
disruption  of  mood,  associated  with  distortions  of  perception,
somatic functioning, and impairment in social  functioning.   Age  of
onset is typically between 15 and 30  years  of  age.   The  clinical
manifestations  include  periods  of  mania,  a  state  of  elevated,
expansive, or irritable mood lasting at least a week, and periods  of
depressed  mood  or  even  episodes  of  major  depression.   Bipolar
disorder is classified into two  types,  type  I  describes  patients
experiencing predominantly problems with mania,  and  type  II  those
with  more  difficulty   with   depression.    Manic   episodes   are
characterized by inflated self  esteem,  decreased  need  for  sleep,
excessive talkativeness, racing of thoughts, increased goal  directed
activity, easy distractibility, and excessive pursuit of  pleasurable
activities without the normal regard for the consequences  of  excess
(spending money, sexual encounters, etc.)  The most common behavioral
symptoms associated with manic  episodes  include  pressured  speech,
hyperverbosity, physical hyperactivity, agitation, decreased need for
sleep,  hypersexuality  and  extravagance.   Impaired  insight  is  a
frequent component of the manic episode.  Bipolar disorder is  marked
by a course of relapses and remissions, is frequently associated with
substance abuse, with a high rate of  suicide  attempt  (25-50%)  and
successful suicide (15%).   Other  conditions  may  produce  symptoms
similar to bipolar disorder with mixed disturbance  of  emotions  and
conduct  manifests  with  symptoms   of   depression,   anxiety   and
inappropriate behavior such as vandalism, reckless driving, fighting,
and   defaulting   on   legal   responsibilities   (i.e.,   financial
responsibilities, etc).

The  applicant’s  contention  that  his  behavior  in  1986   was   a
manifestation of a  bipolar  disorder  is  plausible  but  cannot  be
ascertained from the available records.  There is  no  evidence  that
the history, symptoms and signs as recorded in his medical records at
that time are in error.  His  symptoms  may  not  have  been  of  the
character or  severity  necessary  to  suspect  or  diagnose  bipolar
disorder.  The  nature  of  his  financial  irresponsibility  is  not
detailed in the records with regard to whether it was associated with
excessive irresponsibility over spending rather than  merely  failing
to pay bills.  The evaluating psychiatrist’s diagnosis of  adjustment
disorder with mixed emotions and disturbance of  conduct  appears  to
have been appropriate at time of his single encounter  early  in  the
applicant’s behavioral difficulties.  That psychiatrist did not  have
the opportunity for follow-up evaluation to assess for any change  in
the applicant’s symptoms or behavior  that  might  have  suggested  a
different diagnosis.  It should also be kept in  mind  that  diseases
including psychiatric diseases are not static, uniform conditions but
are dynamic  with  signs  and  symptoms  changing  over  time,  often
resulting in evolving changes in a diagnosis or treatment  plan.   It
cannot be concluded that any error in diagnosis occurred.

Another issue is whether his commander should have directed a  formal
mental  health  evaluation  at  the  time  he   initiated   discharge
proceedings since he was aware of the suicide attempt several  months
before.  Had such an evaluation occurred and rendered a diagnosis  of
bipolar  disorder,  the   applicant   would   have   undergone   both
administrative  discharge  proceedings  for  misconduct  and  medical
evaluation  board  (“dual  action”).   His  commander,  upon  finding
results of an MEB/PEB that  would  result  in  discharge  might  have
elected to allow discharge due to medical reasons to proceed and  not
pursued administrative discharge.  Since his final performance report
reflected that he was performing his duties well, it  is  likely  the
Physical Evaluation Board would have found him  unfit  based  on  his
diagnosis, but rated his condition as mild or without  impairment  to
duty performance and recommended discharge with  severance  pay.   If
the diagnosis  remained  adjustment  disorder  at  the  time  of  his
discharge proceeding, an  unsuiting  condition,  then  administrative
discharge would have been indicated, thus giving the option of  using
“personality disorder” as the narrative reason for discharge  in  the
DD 214.

The  DD  214  in  the  applicant’s   personnel   folder   shows   his
characterization of service as  honorable  and  not  general  as  the
applicant believes.  The narrative reason  for  discharge  accurately
reflects the reason for discharge.

In conclusion, the applicant was discharged for  misconduct  with  an
honorable service characterization fifteen years ago.  At the time he
was suffering from symptoms determined to be an  adjustment  disorder
with  mixed  disturbance  of  emotions  and  conduct,  an   unsuiting
condition.  There is no clear evidence to clearly support  or  refute
the applicant’s otherwise plausible contention that his behavior  was
the result of undiagnosed bipolar disorder.  In his  application  for
correction he appears to believe  his  service  characterization  was
general, but his DD 214 records it as honorable.  At the time of  his
discharge it is highly unlikely he  would  have  received  Air  Force
disability benefits since his duty performance continued to  be  very
good.  He is appropriately receiving  VA  care  at  this  time.   The
narrative reason for discharge is accurate, but there is  an  element
of  uncertainty  raised  that  provides  a  degree  of  latitude  for
reconsideration by the  board  to  change  the  narrative  reason  to
Secretarial  Authority.   No  change  in  the  reenlistment  code  is
warranted.  The BCMR Medical Consultant is  of  the  opinion  that  a
change in the narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority
may be considered.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPD  states  that  the  purpose  of  the  military   disability
evaluation system is to maintain a fit and vital force by  separating
or retiring members who are unable to perform  the  duties  of  their
office, grade, rank or rating.  Those members who  are  separated  or
retired by reason of  a  physical  disability  may  be  eligible  for
certain disability compensation.  Eligibility for processing a member
through the military disability evaluation system is determined by  a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when he  or  she  is  found  medically
disqualified for continued military service.  The decision to conduct
an MEB is made by the medical  treatment  facility  providing  health
care to the member.

Documentation within the veteran’s military record contains a medical
examination conducted on 10 December 1986  for  the  purpose  of  his
ongoing involuntary administrative discharge.   Examination  declared
him fit for worldwide military service with no disqualifying physical
profiles.  A review of his latest  performance  report  verified  his
ability to perform his military duties as an Air  Traffic  Controller
right until the time of his discharge.  Following their review,  they
were unable to detect any medical conditions that would have required
he be referred before an MEB.

They state that their examination of the AFBCMR case file revealed no
errors or irregularities during his administrative  discharge,  which
resulted in  him  receiving  a  General  Discharge  (Under  Honorable
Conditions) due to misconduct that would  justify  a  change  to  his
military records.   The  medical  aspects  of  this  case  are  fully
explained by the Medical Consultant; they agree  with  his  advisory.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 31 May 2002, complete copies of the  Air  Force  evaluations  were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  within  30  days.
As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  In this  respect,  we  are  not
persuaded that the reason for the applicant’s  separation  should  be
changed to medical reasons.  We note the detailed  comments  provided
from the Chief Medical Consultant and  his  recommendation  that  the
Board consider changing the  reason  for  separation  to  Secretarial
Authority.  However, in the absence of evidence that the  applicant’s
misconduct during his period of service  was  caused  by  psychiatric
problems, we do not recommend favorable action on his request  for  a
change to the reason for  separation.   Based  on  the  circumstances
surrounding his discharge and after reviewing his medical history, it
appears that the applicant was not unfit to perform his duties within
the meaning of the law or that the reason for his separation  was  in
accordance with the applicable regulations.  Applicant also  requests
that his discharge be upgraded; however, the DD Form 214, Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects that  he  received
an honorable discharge.  This appears to be in error as his  military
record indicates  that  he  was  discharged  with  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge.  Nonetheless, based on  his  overall
record and the evidence provided, we find  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend that his records be corrected to  reflect  he  received  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 24 September 2002, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 May 02.




                                        PEGGY E. GORDON
                                        Panel Chair